Iran's Eye-For-An-Eye Justice

[Harry Monk]

Interesting story, in a way I can see both sides of the argument although it does seem a little barbaric...

Tehran: The court-ordered blinding of an Iranian man convicted of throwing acid in the face of a fellow student who spurned him was postponed at the eleventh hour on Saturday, the ISNA news agency reported.

The news agency gave no source for its report and there was no official word on any stay.

The sentence against Majid Movahedi had been scheduled to be carried out at noon (0730 GMT) at the judiciary hospital in Tehran in the presence of a physician and representatives of the coroners' office and the prosecution.

"The execution of 'qesas' (retribution in kind) of Majid...has been postponed to an unknown date," ISNA reported on its website just hours before the appointed time.

Movahedi was sentenced to be blinded in both eyes in February 2009 after being convicted of hurling acid in the face of university classmate Ameneh Bahrami when she repeatedly spurned his offer of marriage.

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/irans-eye-for-an-eye-justice-court-ordered-blinding-of-man-postponed-105749?cp

[RichB]

Seems a reasonable course of action, why is it being delayed? Just heightening the anticipation, Mullionaire style?

[Skirmish]

Seems a reasonable course of action, why is it being delayed? Just heightening the anticipation, Mullionaire style?

Totally barbaric. The state/religion lowering itself to the standards of the criminal. I'm all for punishment but there are limits as to how low they should descend.

[RichB]

It's a pretty barbaric crime. Not the same one, but the point stands.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Mohammed-Vakas-Sentenced-To-30-Years-In-Prison-For-An-Horrific-Acid-Attack-On-Awais-Akram/Article/201005215629746?f=rss

That's the way blood feuds can really get started.

[RichB]

Incidentally, http://www.rferl.org...en/3554148.html reckons 150 acid attacks in Pakistan per year - wonder what the rate is in Iran?

According to that, the penalty for it in Bangladesh is even more extreme than Iran!

Though here, apparently it's only 6 years.

http://shepherds-bus...-sentenced.html

Have a google of Katie Piper to see the some of results of such a crime.

[Cinnamon]

Totally barbaric. The state/religion lowering itself to the standards of the criminal. I'm all for punishment but there are limits as to how low they should descend.

This is not punishment as such (otherwise, he'd not be anesthetized and would be doused liberally all over the face, instead of being carefully dripped on), this is a warning to all would-be acid throwers that they too will share the pain they inflict, and it changes the rules of the game somewhat, from it being 'free' to destroy a person to it being guaranteed self-destruction in the same manner.

If this would become the standard punishment, there would not be many more new victims.

But eh, better to be 'morally superior' and putting up with ever more victims of acid throwers, those few hundred burnt people a year sure don't mind suffering because we don't like to be 'mean' to barbarians.

[Stay Beautiful]

They should pour it down his throat aswell for good measure.

[Skirmish]

This is not punishment as such (otherwise, he'd not be anesthetized and would be doused liberally all over the face, instead of being carefully dripped on), this is a warning to all would-be acid throwers that they too will share the pain they inflict, and it changes the rules of the game somewhat, from it being 'free' to destroy a person to it being guaranteed self-destruction in the same manner.

If this would become the standard punishment, there would not be many more new victims.

But eh, better to be 'morally superior' and putting up with ever more victims of acid throwers, those few hundred burnt people a year sure don't mind suffering because we don't like to be 'mean' to barbarians.

Well if that's the kind of law you'd like I'd be happy for you to go and live in an Islamic state where you can adopt their religion and abide by ALL their rules. Fortunately I live in a (semi) Christian country where the rules and laws are rather more humane and civilised.

And regarding your theory that 'ultimate' punishments deter I suggest you closely analyse the American murder rates in the states that use capital punishment.

[RichB]

Well if that's the kind of law you'd like I'd be happy for you to go and live in an Islamic state where you can adopt their religion and abide by ALL their rules. Fortunately I live in a (semi) Christian country where the rules and laws are rather more humane and civilised.

And regarding your theory that 'ultimate' punishments deter I suggest you closely analyse the American murder rates in the states that use capital punishment.

Indeed - just look at Bangladesh + Acid Attacks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5133410.stm

Lawyers in Bangladesh are calling for better implementation of legislation to stop acid attacks.

In 2002 the death penalty was introduced for throwing acid after the number of victims rose to nearly 500 a year.

There is also legislation to force businesses that use acid to store it safely.

But 267 people were still attacked last year and campaigners say it is because the law is ignored.

[Cinnamon]

Well if that's the kind of law you'd like I'd be happy for you to go and live in an Islamic state where you can adopt their religion and abide by ALL their rules. Fortunately I live in a (semi) Christian country where the rules and laws are rather more humane and civilised.

And regarding your theory that 'ultimate' punishments deter I suggest you closely analyse the American murder rates in the states that use capital punishment.

Strange, last time I looked, dead people cannot murder others. And when you analyse the US experience, you find that indeed, the death penalty saves live, there is ample evidence of that, google it. Here in Europe, we let people out over and over again to murder, but the innocents that are sacrificed for your personal idea of civilisation don't count in your calculation.

If you refuse to apply the death penalty to a killer and you let them go, you have applied the random death penalty to a random person -- there is no free lunch. And btw, what about the cost to keep the killer alive in jail? How many sick people will get told as a result that we can't afford their cancer meds?

Indeed - just look at Bangladesh + Acid Attacks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5133410.stm

In 2002 the death penalty was introduced for throwing acid after the number of victims rose to nearly 500 a year.

There is also legislation to force businesses that use acid to store it safely.

But 267 people were still attacked last year and campaigners say it is because the law is ignored.

So... 237 less victims and 267 dead killers who would otherwise probably done other things too (someone that unhinged has more surprises in store for humanity...) -- sounds like a great result.

True, it could be better, and probably would be if they changed the mercy killing to a life sentence as a burnt acid victim.

[RichB]

Strange, last time I looked, dead people cannot murder others. And when you analyse the US experience, you find that indeed, the death penalty saves live, there is ample evidence of that, google it. Here in Europe, we let people out over and over again to murder, but the innocents that are sacrificed for your personal idea of civilisation don't count in your calculation.

If you refuse to apply the death penalty to a killer and you let them go, you have applied the random death penalty to a random person -- there is no free lunch. And btw, what about the cost to keep the killer alive in jail? How many sick people will get told as a result that we can't afford their cancer meds?

So... 237 less victims and 267 dead killers who would otherwise probably done other things too (someone that unhinged has more surprises in store for humanity...) -- sounds like a great result.

True, it could be better, and probably would be if they changed the mercy killing to a life sentence as a burnt acid victim.

So what crimes would you consider worthy of Capital punishment?

[Riedquat]

One wrongful conviction with a capital sentence means the justice system is also a murderer. I don't want to live my life in fear of the law making a mistake and doing something horrific and permanent to me.

I want crooks out of the way, sure. I also want justice, not retribution. Retribution belongs in the dark ages.

[okaycuckoo]

I agree with Cinnammon. Agree to disagree with the others.

If deterrence results from the punishment, fine. But the punishment is the main thing.

Anyway, was listening to a R4 discussion in Pakistan on the way to work this morning. Made the interesting point that Islam regards all as equal, and that sharia is actually a genuine rule of law based on equality. Without it, you end up with tribal corruption, like the Pashtun. Good contributions from people who have experience of the country.

You may disagree with the punishments - I don't - and there is still the core problem of Islam's self-assertion by violence.

[Cinnamon]

So what crimes would you consider worthy of Capital punishment?

After 3 violent/menancing offence or one murder I think that society has suffered enough.

One wrongful conviction with a capital sentence means the justice system is also a murderer. I don't want to live my life in fear of the law making a mistake and doing something horrific and permanent to me.

I want crooks out of the way, sure. I also want justice, not retribution. Retribution belongs in the dark ages.

This is not about retribution, but about removal of killers from society, so they cannot harm anyone anymore, including costing us money that we need elsewhere. There is a cost to keeping them alive in jail and the people paying it are our sick who get told that there is no money to treat them. People actually are left to be crippled and also die by the NHS for want of money, that's a random death penalty and you don't even need to commit a crime to get sentenced.

And right now, you're still living in fear of some rabid mollycoddled criminal doing something nasty to you as well, but he gets more than one shot at it, over an over again. And being killed by one of those guys is far more likely than you ending up dead in a miscarriage of justice. Only a few people had this misfortune, but many more got killed by murderers who were let out to kill again.

So your humane solution is not as good as you hoped it would be. (and I wish you were right, why can't we all get along dammit)

Btw, if Id' built a jail in Siberia to house all those crims that we spared the death penalty and then solicited donations from everyone who is against the death penalty to keep those guys alive... do you really think that enough people would donate to this to keep them alive even if only until January? ;-D

[porca misèria]

Indeed - just look at Bangladesh + Acid Attacks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5133410.stm

500 to 267? Almost a 50% reduction, so evidently something worked ....

[RichB]

500 to 267? Almost a 50% reduction, so evidently something worked ....

Half of all offences committed by people who don't care that their life is forfeit? Wonder what other stats changed. If you are likely to be dead if you get caught, its one hell of a motive for shutting up any witnesses or coppers that come for you.

I believe that is one of the primary reasons most western countries reserve cp for extreme cases.

[Skirmish]

After 3 violent/menancing offence or one murder I think that society has suffered enough.

This is not about retribution, but about removal of killers from society, so they cannot harm anyone anymore, including costing us money that we need elsewhere. There is a cost to keeping them alive in jail and the people paying it are our sick who get told that there is no money to treat them. People actually are left to be crippled and also die by the NHS for want of money, that's a random death penalty and you don't even need to commit a crime to get sentenced.

And right now, you're still living in fear of some rabid mollycoddled criminal doing something nasty to you as well, but he gets more than one shot at it, over an over again. And being killed by one of those guys is far more likely than you ending up dead in a miscarriage of justice. Only a few people had this misfortune, but many more got killed by murderers who were let out to kill again.

So your humane solution is not as good as you hoped it would be. (and I wish you were right, why can't we all get along dammit)

Btw, if Id' built a jail in Siberia to house all those crims that we spared the death penalty and then solicited donations from everyone who is against the death penalty to keep those guys alive... do you really think that enough people would donate to this to keep them alive even if only until January? ;-D

And what about those 'criminals' with mental health problems who the state has failed? Are they given the same barbaric punishment even though they may well not even be able to differerentiate between good and evil, right and wrong.

[Riedquat]

After 3 violent/menancing offence or one murder I think that society has suffered enough.

This is not about retribution, but about removal of killers from society, so they cannot harm anyone anymore, including costing us money that we need elsewhere. There is a cost to keeping them alive in jail and the people paying it are our sick who get told that there is no money to treat them. People actually are left to be crippled and also die by the NHS for want of money, that's a random death penalty and you don't even need to commit a crime to get sentenced.

And right now, you're still living in fear of some rabid mollycoddled criminal doing something nasty to you as well, but he gets more than one shot at it, over an over again. And being killed by one of those guys is far more likely than you ending up dead in a miscarriage of justice. Only a few people had this misfortune, but many more got killed by murderers who were let out to kill again.

So your humane solution is not as good as you hoped it would be. (and I wish you were right, why can't we all get along dammit)

Btw, if Id' built a jail in Siberia to house all those crims that we spared the death penalty and then solicited donations from everyone who is against the death penalty to keep those guys alive... do you really think that enough people would donate to this to keep them alive even if only until January? ;-D

Nonsense, I'm afraid. For starters you could use the same argument for putting every single penny of public expenditure on the NHS. Want that new motorway built? How many people are you killing to do that! And it IS all about retribution - go back to the start of the thread, it was about more than simply the death penalty for murderers.

I'm not living in fear of some "rabid mollycoddled criminal doing something nasty to me", at least no more than I would be under your bloodthirsty regime. Do many people really get killed by murderers who get released to murder again? Particularly by the type of person who's most likely to kill a random stranger? I am very, very, very suspicious about that claim, particularly if you discount ones I'm very unlikely to be on the receiving end of, not being part of a gang or involved in drugs.

I completely disagree that being on the receiving end of a miscarriage of justice is less likely.

Your final example proves nothing except that there are plenty of people as barbaric as yourself. Fortunately society is sometimes more civilised than the individuals who make it up. Acting badly and claiming it's for the greater good always ends in tears.

[Skirmish]

Nonsense, I'm afraid. For starters you could use the same argument for putting every single penny of public expenditure on the NHS. Want that new motorway built? How many people are you killing to do that! And it IS all about retribution - go back to the start of the thread, it was about more than simply the death penalty for murderers.

I'm not living in fear of some "rabid mollycoddled criminal doing something nasty to me", at least no more than I would be under your bloodthirsty regime. Do many people really get killed by murderers who get released to murder again? Particularly by the type of person who's most likely to kill a random stranger? I am very, very, very suspicious about that claim, particularly if you discount ones I'm very unlikely to be on the receiving end of, not being part of a gang or involved in drugs.

I completely disagree that being on the receiving end of a miscarriage of justice is less likely.

Your final example proves nothing except that there are plenty of people as barbaric as yourself. Fortunately society is sometimes more civilised than the individuals who make it up. Acting badly and claiming it's for the greater good always ends in tears.

+1

Very eloquently put!